Predator of Consciousness

Is it necessary to do dreamwork, or astral traveling before death to assist us?

Quoting: Anonymous Coward 36611906

I think the most important thing is silencing the inner dialogue through meditation. That is the foundation to learning to do many great things.

Dream work and astral travel are also very important. Since the only thing that dies is your ego you want to detach yourself from it and its insidious beliefs.

Think about children and how magical life is for them. Many of them use psychic abilities that baffle the adults around them. So the adults manipulate the way the children view and create their reality so that the children create a world as bland and morose as the adults that teach them. No you can't do that you can't do this while sitting them in front of a TV that programs their mind to think a certain way. Originally children are able to experience many different worlds, but they are taught to experience only this one.

This is your predator....

Quoting:

Some have argued that the predator is like the golem of Jewish folklore and only a creation of the human mind. I personally don't believe this to be true because of various experiences I have had. I believe that the Arcons exist outside of human awareness and have been around earth far longer then humans have.

The exchange of energy is not as hard as you might think. I'm sure everybody has known somebody that seems to drain your energy when you are around them. When people feel strong emotions that is when they give off the most energy and this is why the predator attempts to keep people in a heightened state of fear over survival.

Is it necessary to do dreamwork, or astral traveling before death to assist us?

Quoting: Anonymous Coward 36611906

I think the most important thing is silencing the inner dialogue through meditation. That is the foundation to learning to do many great things.

Dream work and astral travel are also very important. Since the only thing that dies is your ego you want to detach yourself from it and its insidious beliefs.

Think about children and how magical life is for them. Many of them use psychic abilities that baffle the adults around them. So the adults manipulate the way the children view and create their reality so that the children create a world as bland and morose as the adults that teach them. No you can't do that you can't do this while sitting them in front of a TV that programs their mind to think a certain way. Originally children are able to experience many different worlds, but they are taught to experience only this one.

This is your predator....

Quoting:

Some have argued that the predator is like the golem of Jewish folklore and only a creation of the human mind. I personally don't believe this to be true because of various experiences I have had. I believe that the Arcons exist outside of human awareness and have been around earth far longer then humans have.

The exchange of energy is not as hard as you might think. I'm sure everybody has known somebody that seems to drain your energy when you are around them. When people feel strong emotions that is when they give off the most energy and this is why the predator attempts to keep people in a heightened state of fear over survival.

Quoting: Focused_Intent

I guess I have to say that I have 'problems' with such an 'objectification' of the term "predator".

It is a paranoid image, to begin with; which means, of course, that it is congruent with the consciousness of the "self" which originates in fear and desire in the first place; by which I mean that such a kind of consciousness must be observed in detail, in the mechanisms of its actions and reflexes, to be of any use.

That is, the problems with the dualistic consciousness are much more subtle than that.

One moves from the "observing consciousness", to the consciousness of the "self", to the consciousness of the 'thinker' maybe hundreds of times each day; depending upon the exigencies of life.

It is the tenacity of the images of the "self" and the thoughts of the 'thinker'--and the inability to step outside of those images and thoughts--that is the problem.

It is the "self" that loves, for example. And, while that is positive, it is the holding to images of that love, and interacting on the basis of those images, that cause problems.

Same goes for the thoughts of the 'thinker'.

They are crucially important for survival in society.

On the other hand, they are, in other instances, the very source of conflict and violence.

In short, Gnostic theory is not any better than any other theory if it is nothing more than something that is held by the consciousness of the 'thinker' for the purpose of preserving the duality of the "self".

I guess I have to say that I have 'problems' with such an 'objectification' of the term "predator".

It is a paranoid image, to begin with; which means, of course, that it is congruent with the consciousness of the "self" which originates in fear and desire in the first place; by which I mean that such a kind of consciousness must be observed in detail, in the mechanisms of its actions and reflexes, to be of any use.

That is, the problems with the dualistic consciousness are much more subtle than that.

One moves from the "observing consciousness", to the consciousness of the "self", to the consciousness of the 'thinker' maybe hundreds of times each day; depending upon the exigencies of life.

It is the tenacity of the images of the "self" and the thoughts of the 'thinker'--and the inability to step outside of those images and thoughts--that is the problem.

It is the "self" that loves, for example. And, while that is positive, it is the holding to images of that love, and interacting on the basis of those images, that cause problems.

Same goes for the thoughts of the 'thinker'.

They are crucially important for survival in society.

On the other hand, they are, in other instances, the very source of conflict and violence.

In short, Gnostic theory is not any better than any other theory if it is nothing more than something that is held by the consciousness of the 'thinker' for the purpose of preserving the duality of the "self".

Michael

Quoting: 4Q529

You can not observe consciousness from a position of separation. You are consciousness. You can only observe the self image that consciousness creates. My name is blah blah blah and I like blah blah blah.

You can take a step back and say what is it that likes blah blah blah and chooses to behave a certain way. Behavior is a choice. What is it that is choosing how to behave? Consciousness. Sadly in our current state we are unable to access our full consciousness and this creates confusion.

I personally think that you are unnecessarily trying to over complicate things. Duality is necessary if you wish to experience and all duality stems from positive and negative energy. Energy is the most important thing in existence.

All of people’s energy is used through the act of living. They don’t realize the act of living was created to make them exert all their energy. In this world they foolishly turn their energy into money or (electrical) currency. Whenever people do manage to store up extra energy they typically release it during sex. With no energy you have no personal power and with no power you can’t manifest your thoughts. The Egyptians used to use an ankh to try to reroute their energy that is released during orgasm back into their body. This is why many monks become celibate they are trying to store energy. Just like with money you need to have energy already saved to generate more energy.

Thought is the creative force, and words are powerful because they are spoken thought that carry a special vibration. The language we have been taught carries negative vibrations and people don't realize that they are being hypnotized by a form of word magic. That's because they are taught there is no such thing as magic. Hell, even on your money is occult symbols and making parchment is a form of binding magic that makes people desire the money.

I guess I have to say that I have 'problems' with such an 'objectification' of the term "predator".

It is a paranoid image, to begin with; which means, of course, that it is congruent with the consciousness of the "self" which originates in fear and desire in the first place; by which I mean that such a kind of consciousness must be observed in detail, in the mechanisms of its actions and reflexes, to be of any use.

That is, the problems with the dualistic consciousness are much more subtle than that.

One moves from the "observing consciousness", to the consciousness of the "self", to the consciousness of the 'thinker' maybe hundreds of times each day; depending upon the exigencies of life.

It is the tenacity of the images of the "self" and the thoughts of the 'thinker'--and the inability to step outside of those images and thoughts--that is the problem.

It is the "self" that loves, for example. And, while that is positive, it is the holding to images of that love, and interacting on the basis of those images, that cause problems.

Same goes for the thoughts of the 'thinker'.

They are crucially important for survival in society.

On the other hand, they are, in other instances, the very source of conflict and violence.

In short, Gnostic theory is not any better than any other theory if it is nothing more than something that is held by the consciousness of the 'thinker' for the purpose of preserving the duality of the "self".

Michael

Quoting: 4Q529

You can not observe consciousness from a position of separation. You are consciousness. You can only observe the self image that consciousness creates.

Quoting: Focused_Intent

The sentence "you are consciousness" has no real meaning.

You must specify what it is that you are talking about.

There are three dimensions of consciousness: the "self", the 'thinker' and the "observing consciousness".

Both the "self" and the 'thinker' can be observed from the 'frame of reference' of the "observing consciousness"; but the 'observation' of the "observing consciousness" itself consists of the knowledge of the existence of the "observing consciousness" and the resolution of the duality.

I personally think that you are unnecessarily trying to over complicate things. Duality is necessary if you wish to experience and all duality stems from positive and negative energy. Energy is the most important thing in existence.

Quoting: Focused_Intent

Once again, I get the impression that your words are based upon nothing evidentiary, consisting only of thought itself.

You say "positive and negative energy"; meaning precisely what?

There is desire for pleasure and self-preservation and fear of pain and annihilation; they are what 'motivate' the 'movement' of self-reflection, which is the origin of the duality, at the neurological level; that desire and fear is then extrapolated to both the consciousness of the "self" and the consciousness of the 'thinker'.

In other words, this "energy" that you are talking about is observed in specific manifestations and each one has different effects upon the 'spatiality' of the "self".

There are three dimensions of consciousness: the "self", the 'thinker' and the "observing consciousness".

Quoting:

People play the role of an actor as they pretend to be their ego or self image. That is where you get the idea of the self and also what Shakespeare meant with his famous saying "All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players: they have their exits and their entrances; and one man in his time plays many parts, his acts being seven ages."

Once you realize that you are not your self image you begin to contemplate your thoughts and question where they come from. You realize that you can go to a place of silence that is beyond the reach of the thoughts and so you get the idea of a thinker because you can observe your thoughts.

Once you have identified your self image and the thinker you then think what is left is the observing consciousness that observes the thoughts and the ego/self identity.

When I say consciousness I am talking about the consciousness that observes the ego and the thoughts. Because truly this is what consciousness is. The self and the thinker are not part of consciousness they are the acts of consciousness.

There are three dimensions of consciousness: the "self", the 'thinker' and the "observing consciousness".

Quoting:

People play the role of an actor as they pretend to be their ego or self image. That is where you get the idea of the self...

Quoting: Focused_Intent

(sigh)

I am not talking about the idea of the "self".

I am talking about the observed reality of the "self".

It is not any idea; it is something that can actually be observed, like the three states of water: ice, water and steam.

Once you realize that you are not your self image you begin to contemplate your thoughts and question where they come from. You realize that you can go to a place of silence that is beyond the reach of the thoughts and so you get the idea of a thinker because you can observe your thoughts.

Quoting: Focused_Intent

You appear to be working backwards in this regard.

Maybe that's not important. I don't know.

Once you have identified your self image and the thinker you then think what is left is the observing consciousness that observes the thoughts and the ego/self identity.

Quoting: Focused_Intent

Precisely wrong.

That was not the origin of my observation of that consciousness at all.

It originated in the revelation of the memories of previous lives, in which there was a consciousness that observed the emergence of the consciousness of the "self" and the consciousness of the 'thinker' over many lifetimes.

It was not any idea; it was an observed reality.

Just as the "self" is not an idea, neither is the "observing consciousness". It is an actual observed reality. The difficulty is in learning that its observation is consumed in the knowledge of its existence.

When I say consciousness I am talking about the consciousness that observes the ego and the thoughts. Because truly this is what consciousness is. The self and the thinker are not part of consciousness they are the acts of consciousness.

Quoting: Focused_Intent

Of course, the "self" and the 'thinker' are part of consciousness.

If you love, you have a consciousness of a "self".

If you read the news, you have a consciousness of a 'thinker'.

They are dualistic rather than non-dualistic; but they are not disqualified from being elements of consciousness for that reason.

What are you speaking about life? That is the only observed reality that we are experiencing currently. Life is not the observed reality of the self. Life is the observed reality of the ego which is a construct of the predators mind. To experience thoughts is to create an observed reality.

It makes a lot of sense. The we are energy concept is something that I have "believed' in for most of my life. I have always just understood that was how it was and have been having a lot of verification lately that it indeed is the way it is.

This predator you speak of. I see it. Especially since last Friday, a week ago today 3/22. It was as if a portal opened and these things came came rushing in. I have felt as though I have had one foot in another dimension since. It is not bad. It is just different.

I see it here on this website. Everyone seems to have gone mad one way or another. They are either "god" themselves or have been suddenly "awakened." Somehow I am getting the feeling the "awakening" they are feeling is not real. Something does not feel right about it. When I start hearing about this awakening from people on the street, coworkers etc something seems forced. I am all for finding ones own path, because it is necessary. But something feels forced.

I was walking through a park the other day and this guy started yelling at me about angels. That he could smell them. It was a but unnerving to say the least. I have noticed a lot of other subtle things about people in the last week.

Something changed. Something happened.

Thank you again for this thread. Helps to better understand what we are up against.

What are you speaking about life? That is the only observed reality that we are experiencing currently. Life is not the observed reality of the self. Life is the observed reality of the ego which is a construct of the predators mind. To experience thoughts is to create an observed reality.

Consciousness has no identity it simply is.

Quoting: Focused_Intent

Well, now I am really confused about what you are saying.

I consider the "self" to be the same as the "ego".

And now you are differentiating them?

How?

And what does the term "predator's 'mind'" mean?

A 'mind'--any 'mind'--is a 'curved spatiality' of consciousness originating in the 'movement' of self-reflection.

That is, my 'mind' is over here and your 'mind' is over there.

That is what I mean by 'curved spatiality'.

If you cannot describe what you really mean by the word consciousness, it is not in any way a useful term.

You might as well replace it with the word "unicorn", for example.

Life is the reality of the "self", the reality of the 'thinker' and the reality of a non-dualistic dimension of consciousness--all of these things together.

the discussion on this thread is the best I have found anywhere so far on these subjects!

what about this: conscious IS mind, they are interchangable words for the same, yes/no? why?

if everything originates in the mind/conscious then where does "energy" fit in here or if everything is energy then how does this create mind/conscious?

yes this spell we are under here (spelling/words) is where this confusion arises but we really dont have another option to discuss with.

dreams are very important to the topic. I dont have answers but out discussion can provide more insight into this if we dont close our minds off to other possibilities.

where do dreams come from? mine seem to stem from desire in some form thats why when I first read about the most silent minds do not dream it made sense BUT I had reoccuring dreams when I was a child that later in life I remembered from a dejavue experience. at first it seemed to be dejavue but then I remembered it was that reoccuring dream!

that is what "woke me up" more than anything else to the possibilities that there is more to this life than meets the eye.

thnaks all, please..please continue with this discussion. I find nothing more important than this.

the discussion on this thread is the best I have found anywhere so far on these subjects!

what about this: conscious IS mind, they are interchangable words for the same, yes/no? why?

Quoting: Anonymous Coward 29203778

Consciousness and 'mind' are not the same thing.

A 'mind' is a 'spatiality' of consciousness as I have written above.

If you want to assume that that is the only dimension of consciousness, you are welcome to do that. That, for example, is mostly what Western psychology does. But it is incomplete.

For example, that is not what the Eastern esotericists have observed.

They have said that there is another non-spatial, non-temporal dimension of consciousness--an "observing consciousness", unfettered by images of 'spatiality', or the 'temporal' dimension of the 'thinker'--prior to the existence of the 'spatial' and 'temporal' consciousness.

In terms of the monotheistic Revelations: The consciousness Created by God is not the 'fallen', dualistic consciousness of the "self" and the 'thinker'.

You can not observe consciousness from a position of separation. You are consciousness. You can only observe the self image that consciousness creates.

Quoting: 4Q529

The sentence "you are consciousness" has no real meaning.

You must specify what it is that you are talking about.

There are three dimensions of consciousness: the "self", the 'thinker' and the "observing consciousness".

Both the "self" and the 'thinker' can be observed from the 'frame of reference' of the "observing consciousness"; but the 'observation' of the "observing consciousness" itself consists of the knowledge of the existence of the "observing consciousness" and the resolution of the duality.

Michael

to give a real life example, many times in the past i was involved in inner debates between different sides/voices.for example the voice of the desire nature and the voice of the soul/heart. Or the voice of reason and the voice of instinct. Each argued its case, and behind them stood the silent watcher, observing and knowing in a way that was not transparent to the sides involved.

from the stance of the silent watcher, all that happens on the inner stage is non-essential. Different manifestations of various actors on the inner stage. Be it the voice of ego/self or the voice of the heart, intuition or reason. they are just characters, roles.

and from the point of awareness which is the silent watcher, various inner characters can be given the lead role according to the script.

and when the silent watcher is not present, we are just in a trance-like state, puppets of archetypal forces manifesting through us.

There are three dimensions of consciousness: the "self", the 'thinker' and the "observing consciousness".

Both the "self" and the 'thinker' can be observed from the 'frame of reference' of the "observing consciousness"; but the 'observation' of the "observing consciousness" itself consists of the knowledge of the existence of the "observing consciousness" and the resolution of the duality.

Michael

Quoting: 4Q529

further words like counsciousness, mind, thinker, self, ego can easily lead to confusion, because different individuals attach different concepts with those words, and abstract conceptual clarification is always welcomed.

for example to use a classical seven fold division:

"In all the Teachings one finds the subdivision of the human being into three fundamental principles: spiritual, psychic, and physical - or spirit, soul, and body. In the Eastern Teachings there is extension of these three basic principles, for special purposes, and we find the fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh principles. This development was approved by the Mahatmas in The Secret Doctrine. Thus, the highest or fundamental principle, which contains potentially the synthesis of all the others, is the fiery energy of life or spirit, which is spread throughout the entire Cosmos. For its focus it requires the sixth principle, or Buddhi (often called "the spirit soul" as distinct from the human-animal soul). Thus the monad is formed, which is the primary, unconscious, incarnated Ego. Then follows the fifth principle - the Manas, self-consciousness, "the thinker" (higher intelligence). These three principles form the higher triad, or the conscious, immortal Ego. In Devachan, this Ego survives after the dissolution of the other principles which form man's earthly personality, or, as the Easterners would put it, man's lower ego, or self. In the Teaching, this Higher Ego, or the triad, is often treated as the seed of the spirit, which is unable directly or independently to manifest itself on earth. In order to manifest, this triad needs a fourth principle, called Kama, through which desire is expressed in two aspects: Kama-Manas, or the lower intellect (literally, the intellect of desires), and Kama-Rupa, or subjective form (the form of mental and physical desires and thoughts). This is the thinker in action. Kama, in connection with Manas (the higher) and Buddhi, forms the higher Subtle Body (the astral body, in order that it be not confused with its etheric double, is often called "the lower astral") or the spiritual soul of the spiritually developed man. Kama-Manas is a sort of bridge which connects the higher Manas with Kama-Rupa, thus connecting Manas and Form to make the Kama-Manas body, or human soul. When this bridge between Manas and its lower aspect, Kama-Manas, has been established, i.e., when man begins to receive the impressions from the higher Buddhi-Manas, we can say that man is spiritually developed and approaches immortality. Thus, for the achievement of true immortality, in other words, of the maintaining of consciousness on all four planes of existence, and for becoming an Arhat, it is essential to connect, precisely in the physical body, the fourth, fifth, and seventh principles and fuse them in the sixth - Buddhi. All the qualities of the basic energy, being separately transmuted by its fire, must be harmonized and expressed in the highest quality of psychic energy."

in this division the two highest principles are unconscious in the plane of manifestation, and only the fifth principle - Manas - provides self-counsciousness which is in turn identified with "the thinker"

could you correlate your three dimensions of consciousness to the division spelled above?

There are three dimensions of consciousness: the "self", the 'thinker' and the "observing consciousness".

Both the "self" and the 'thinker' can be observed from the 'frame of reference' of the "observing consciousness"; but the 'observation' of the "observing consciousness" itself consists of the knowledge of the existence of the "observing consciousness" and the resolution of the duality.

Michael

Quoting: 4Q529

further words like counsciousness, mind, thinker, self, ego can easily lead to confusion, because different individuals attach different concepts with those words, and abstract conceptual clarification is always welcomed.

for example to use a classical seven fold division:

"In all the Teachings one finds the subdivision of the human being into three fundamental principles: spiritual, psychic, and physical - or spirit, soul, and body. In the Eastern Teachings there is extension of these three basic principles, for special purposes, and we find the fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh principles. This development was approved by the Mahatmas in The Secret Doctrine. Thus, the highest or fundamental principle, which contains potentially the synthesis of all the others, is the fiery energy of life or spirit, which is spread throughout the entire Cosmos. For its focus it requires the sixth principle, or Buddhi (often called "the spirit soul" as distinct from the human-animal soul). Thus the monad is formed, which is the primary, unconscious, incarnated Ego. Then follows the fifth principle - the Manas, self-consciousness, "the thinker" (higher intelligence). These three principles form the higher triad, or the conscious, immortal Ego. In Devachan, this Ego survives after the dissolution of the other principles which form man's earthly personality, or, as the Easterners would put it, man's lower ego, or self. In the Teaching, this Higher Ego, or the triad, is often treated as the seed of the spirit, which is unable directly or independently to manifest itself on earth. In order to manifest, this triad needs a fourth principle, called Kama, through which desire is expressed in two aspects: Kama-Manas, or the lower intellect (literally, the intellect of desires), and Kama-Rupa, or subjective form (the form of mental and physical desires and thoughts). This is the thinker in action. Kama, in connection with Manas (the higher) and Buddhi, forms the higher Subtle Body (the astral body, in order that it be not confused with its etheric double, is often called "the lower astral") or the spiritual soul of the spiritually developed man. Kama-Manas is a sort of bridge which connects the higher Manas with Kama-Rupa, thus connecting Manas and Form to make the Kama-Manas body, or human soul. When this bridge between Manas and its lower aspect, Kama-Manas, has been established, i.e., when man begins to receive the impressions from the higher Buddhi-Manas, we can say that man is spiritually developed and approaches immortality. Thus, for the achievement of true immortality, in other words, of the maintaining of consciousness on all four planes of existence, and for becoming an Arhat, it is essential to connect, precisely in the physical body, the fourth, fifth, and seventh principles and fuse them in the sixth - Buddhi. All the qualities of the basic energy, being separately transmuted by its fire, must be harmonized and expressed in the highest quality of psychic energy."

in this division the two highest principles are unconscious in the plane of manifestation, and only the fifth principle - Manas - provides self-counsciousness which is in turn identified with "the thinker"

could you correlate your three dimensions of consciousness to the division spelled above?

Quoting: andreidita

Not really.

The concern I have is the acquisition of a theory to be held as a belief system. This goes against everything that Krishnamurti suggested.

Following the teaching of Krishnamurti, no belief system is any better than any other belief system. The theories of the monotheistic religions are, in terms of thought, no better or worse than the Buddhist theories.

It is all thought; all created by the consciousness of the "self"/'thinker' for the purpose of maintaining the temporal continuity of the "self".

'Three Dimensions of Consciousness' is not any theory about consciousness. It is not something that I would have you believe. (Just like there are three states of water: ice, water and steam. That is not any belief. That is something that can readily be observed.) It is a description of consciousness. It is not Popper-falsifiable any more than the three states of water are Popper-falsifiable. It is a summary of observations.

The body and its sensations and perceptions and emotions and behaviors are part of the "self"; meanwhile, the soul or the spirit is not something that can be directly observed. It is a thought used to maintain the existence of the "self". Same goes for such things as "immortality".

Krishnamurti talks about the observation of thought, or the observation of the 'thinker'.

I have taken that as a template, and taken it backwards in time another step, for the observation of the "self".

A 'mind'--any 'mind'--is a 'curved spatiality' of consciousness originating in the 'movement' of self-reflection.

That is, my 'mind' is over here and your 'mind' is over there.

That is what I mean by 'curved spatiality'.

If you cannot describe what you really mean by the word consciousness, it is not in any way a useful term.

You might as well replace it with the word "unicorn", for example.

Life is the reality of the "self", the reality of the 'thinker' and the reality of a non-dualistic dimension of consciousness--all of these things together.

Michael

Quoting: 4Q529

Yes I know what I am saying goes against many teachings about consciousness. I am saying that while people identify them self as the ego, the ego is actually not a part of them. There is a parasitic spiritual entity that has attached its self to people and it has merged its mind/consciousness with us. The ego is not a part of our mind it is that of the predator. I am not speaking metaphorically right now I am speaking literally. This can be detected during meditation and seen in peoples auras.

Here is what I quoted at the beginning of the thread.

“‘No, they don’t do it that way. That’s idiotic!” don Juan said, smiling. “They are infinitely more efficient and organized than that. In order to keep us obedient and meek and weak, the predators engaged themselves in a stupendous manoeuvre

stupendous, of course, from the point of view of a fighting strategist. A horrendous manoeuvre from the point of view of those who suffer it. They gave us their mind! Do you hear me? The predators give us their mind, which becomes our mind. The predators’ mind is baroque, contradictory, morose, filled with the fear of being discovered any minute now.”

A 'mind'--any 'mind'--is a 'curved spatiality' of consciousness originating in the 'movement' of self-reflection.

That is, my 'mind' is over here and your 'mind' is over there.

That is what I mean by 'curved spatiality'.

If you cannot describe what you really mean by the word consciousness, it is not in any way a useful term.

You might as well replace it with the word "unicorn", for example.

Life is the reality of the "self", the reality of the 'thinker' and the reality of a non-dualistic dimension of consciousness--all of these things together.

Michael

Quoting: 4Q529

Yes I know what I am saying goes against many teachings about consciousness.

Quoting: Focused_Intent

But that is not my objection.

My objection is that what you are saying cannot be directly observed.

It is a thought or theory that has no other referent; it is only a thought. Which means that it is a belief that must be held by the consciousness of the 'thinker'. Like a thought of a unicorn. It has no reality. It is merely a thought. Even if someone draws a picture of one.

I am saying that while people identify them self as the ego, the ego is actually not a part of them. There is a parasitic spiritual entity that has attached its self to people and it has merged its mind/consciousness with us. The ego is not a part of our mind it is that of the predator. I am not speaking metaphorically right now I am speaking literally. This can be detected during meditation and seen in peoples auras.

Quoting: Focused_Intent

But all of this is a violation of the Law of Parsimony or Occam's Razor. It is thought upon thought upon thought; resulting in an infinite regress of complexification. And it is very difficult to understand what you are saying without a definition of what you really mean by the words 'mind' and 'consciousness'.

Here is what I quoted at the beginning of the thread.

“‘No, they don’t do it that way. That’s idiotic!” don Juan said, smiling. “They are infinitely more efficient and organized than that. In order to keep us obedient and meek and weak, the predators engaged themselves in a stupendous manoeuvre

stupendous, of course, from the point of view of a fighting strategist. A horrendous manoeuvre from the point of view of those who suffer it. They gave us their mind! Do you hear me? The predators give us their mind, which becomes our mind. The predators’ mind is baroque, contradictory, morose, filled with the fear of being discovered any minute now.”

Quoting: Don Juan

Quoting: Focused_Intent

All of this strikes me as little more than paranoid mentation; the function of which is to intensify the "us"/"them" duality; thus reinforcing and strengthening the consciousness of the "self" when that is, purportedly, precisely what is not desired.

It can be directly observed and I have seen it and experienced it in what you call experienced reality and also in meditation and dreaming.

When I was young I used to gaze at rocks, plants or clouds and I would see shadows moving around in my peripheral vision. I have fined tuned my gazing since then to be able to see these mud shadows and flyers very easily and I can often see them attached to people or moving about. I can feel their energy also, especially the energy of the bigger ones. So can other people. So to me their existence is not in question. They can take on any form be it angel, demon, reptilian, grey alien, whatever the person viewing them believes in. What do you think a succubus or an incubus is? These things are real they are not the creation of humans. They are all the same shape shifting spiritual entity.

What do you think children are seeing when they have an imaginary friend? The predator is very attracted to children because their energy is different then adults until the child reaches puberty. That is why most children will stop seeing their imaginary friend around puberty. You have to understand that the human body is like a generator constantly giving off energy. This is no coincidence. It has been said by science that the human body gives off more heat per square inch then the sun. That is because people have a sun inside them, they have the whole universe inside them. If you talk to people that had imaginary friends they will tell you that some encounters left them feeling drained of energy and sometimes they felt regenerated by the experience. This is where the idea of "watchers" comes from.

There is no such thing as a hallucination. The definition of a hallucination is to experience something that doesn't exist. This is not possible. If you have experienced it then it exists. This is why people that have altered their assemblage point or have opened their doors of perception are able to see into other worlds especially the spiritual and they are placed in mental institutions where they are tortured. Consensus view does not make something more real remember I said that.

Darkness had descended very quickly, and the foliage of the trees that had been glowing green a little while before was now very dark and heavy. Don Juan said that if I paid close attention to the darkness of the foliage without focusing my eyes, but sort: of looked at it from the corner of my eye, I would see a fleeting shadow crossing my field of vision.

"This is the appropriate time of day for doing what I am asking you to do," he said. "It takes a moment to engage the necessary attention in you to do it. Don't stop until you catch that fleeting black shadow."

I did see some strange fleeting black shadow projected on the foliage of the trees. It was either one shadow going back and forth or various fleeting shadows moving from left to right or right to left or straight up in the air. They looked like fat black fish to me,

enormous fish. It was as if gigantic swordfish were flying in the air. I was engrossed in the sight. Then, finally, it scared me. It became too dark to see the foliage, yet I could still see the fleeting black shadows.

"What is it, don Juan?" I asked. "I see fleeting black shadows all over the place."

"Ah, that's the universe at large," he said, "incommensurable, nonlinear, outside the realm of syntax. The sorcerers of ancient Mexico were the first ones to see those fleeting shadows, so they followed them around. They saw them as you're seeing them, and they saw them as energy that flows in the universe, And they did discover something transcendental."

He stopped talking and looked at me. His pauses were perfectly placed. He always stopped talking when I was hanging by a thread.

"What did they discover, don Juan?" I asked.

"They discovered that we have a companion for life," he said, as clearly as he could.

Quoting: Don Juan

There are many websites and videos about this I will give you one link that compares the teaching of Don Juan with the Gnostic texts.

It can be directly observed and I have seen it and experienced it in what you call experienced reality and also in meditation and dreaming.

When I was young I used to gaze at rocks, plants or clouds and I would see shadows moving around in my peripheral vision. I have fined tuned my gazing since then to be able to see these mud shadows and flyers very easily and I can often see them attached to people or moving about. I can feel their energy also, especially the energy of the bigger ones. So can other people. So to me their existence is not in question. They can take on any form be it angel, demon, reptilian, grey alien, whatever the person viewing them believes in. What do you think a succubus or an incubus is? These things are real they are not the creation of humans. They are all the same shape shifting spiritual entity.

What do you think children are seeing when they have an imaginary friend? The predator is very attracted to children because their energy is different then adults until the child reaches puberty. That is why most children will stop seeing their imaginary friend around puberty. You have to understand that the human body is like a generator constantly giving off energy. This is no coincidence. It has been said by science that the human body gives off more heat per square inch then the sun. That is because people have a sun inside them, they have the whole universe inside them. If you talk to people that had imaginary friends they will tell you that some encounters left them feeling drained of energy and sometimes they felt regenerated by the experience. This is where the idea of "watchers" comes from.

There is no such thing as a hallucination. The definition of a hallucination is to experience something that doesn't exist. This is not possible. If you have experienced it then it exists. This is why people that have altered their assemblage point or have opened their doors of perception are able to see into other worlds especially the spiritual and they are placed in mental institutions where they are tortured. Consensus view does not make something more real remember I said that.

Darkness had descended very quickly, and the foliage of the trees that had been glowing green a little while before was now very dark and heavy. Don Juan said that if I paid close attention to the darkness of the foliage without focusing my eyes, but sort: of looked at it from the corner of my eye, I would see a fleeting shadow crossing my field of vision.

"This is the appropriate time of day for doing what I am asking you to do," he said. "It takes a moment to engage the necessary attention in you to do it. Don't stop until you catch that fleeting black shadow."

I did see some strange fleeting black shadow projected on the foliage of the trees. It was either one shadow going back and forth or various fleeting shadows moving from left to right or right to left or straight up in the air. They looked like fat black fish to me,

enormous fish. It was as if gigantic swordfish were flying in the air. I was engrossed in the sight. Then, finally, it scared me. It became too dark to see the foliage, yet I could still see the fleeting black shadows.

"What is it, don Juan?" I asked. "I see fleeting black shadows all over the place."

"Ah, that's the universe at large," he said, "incommensurable, nonlinear, outside the realm of syntax. The sorcerers of ancient Mexico were the first ones to see those fleeting shadows, so they followed them around. They saw them as you're seeing them, and they saw them as energy that flows in the universe, And they did discover something transcendental."

He stopped talking and looked at me. His pauses were perfectly placed. He always stopped talking when I was hanging by a thread.

"What did they discover, don Juan?" I asked.

"They discovered that we have a companion for life," he said, as clearly as he could.

Quoting: Don Juan

There are many websites and videos about this I will give you one link that compares the teaching of Don Juan with the Gnostic texts.

It follows that the intent to arrange our minds and lives so that the flyers/Archons are not willing to intrude on us is the capital exercise, the primary test in progress for humanity.

Quoting:

Quoting: Focused_Intent

Well, clearly, you are talking about something here that is beyond my experience.

This is not what I mean by the word "observation"; but that probably cannot be explained in a way that you would be able to understand because of the things that you do see, rather than observe.

In other words, when I use the word "observe", I am not talking about "seeing".

There is the example of Wilhelm Reich who was able to observe the character structures of his clients; that is more of what I am talking about; the perception of the reflexes, mechanisms, interactions, etc. of the dualistic consciousness and the tenacity with which it holds to images, thoughts and memories for self-preservation.

I was on the Krishnamurti forum for maybe 3 or 4 years, engaging in probably hundreds of discussions and easily thousands of comments. And, over and over, it came down to the question of what was meant by the word "observe".

Now, you might think that people acquainted with the teaching of Krishnamurti would know what that term meant; but, over and over, I encountered people who could mimic the words of Krishnamurti; but, when questioned, could not go beyond anything he had said. They claimed to be able to "observe" some of the things he said; but when I questioned them on associated "observations", they completely drew a blank. They were conditioned to what Krishnamurti had told them but could not observe beyond what he had observed.

You might want to listen to some of the video tapes of Krishnamurti or read some of his commentaries when he explains similar kinds of experiences that he had; but, ultimately, determined that they were distractions from the reality of consciousness. It seems I recall, if I am not mistaken, that he was able to see what he called "fairies" or 'elementals' associated with plants and certain geographical locations.

I have seen in my peripheral vision actions of people during their previous lives; a nurse in a neo-natal intensive care unit who, in a previous life, was an American Indian priest or shaman, for example. And, sometimes during a conversation, a person's face will 'flicker' between lives.

I have seen this "Predator" and he's more tangible than you are alluding. Calling him the Predator is perfect because his image is almost identical to the character from the movie, perhaps minus the mouth.

The one thing I can correct you on is that, no all those references are not specifically about him but they are related in so far that he uses the reptilians. The reptilians which are service-to-self mostly only obey him out of fear.

Their are many of him here (or just refractions of 1, like cells of one body), and I believe they are referred to as the Orion Crusaders in the LawOfOne.info llresearch.org information

How did I encounter him? Let me refer to this passage from llresearch where the best and only 1 of 2 genuine adept channelers I will vouch for provided this:

G: S, from Canada, has a question. S says, “There are a lot of people taking hallucinatory drugs. Many of them report that it helped them to open their mind in new ways. Others get very frightened and never do them again. Please explain what is happening to a person when they are under the influence of one of these drugs and if it is harmless and/or beneficial. If you could speak specifically about LSD, mushrooms and salvia divinorum [9] I would appreciate it.”

We are those of Q’uo, and we are aware of the query of the one known as S. My brother, the question of the use of hallucinatory substances is not so much a spiritual question as it is a physical question. Further, it is not possible to offer one answer, for everyone who would take a given dosage of LSD, mushrooms or salvia shall experience that dosage in a unique way based upon his body type, his sensitivity and the many aspects of personality and energy, in terms of vital energy, physical energy, emotional energy and so forth, that come together to create that moment when the dosage is taken.

In general, my brother, such substances remove obstacles to the seeing of a fuller reality. How this will work for one person is impossible to predict and whether that dosage exceeds that entity’s ability to integrate the experience is also impossible to predict. Thus it is that “experimenting with drugs” is called such accurately. It is indeed an experiment.

We would never deny that it is often such enhanced experiences that give a new seeker the impetus towards awakening and seeking outside the limits of his birth and culture. We would also not deny that there are many whose experiences have not been positive ones, and when this occurs, it is because, as we said, the power of the experience is too great for the circuitry, speaking in a metaphysical sense, of that entity at that time.

There are some entities whose circuitry is already perfectly adjusted to finer realities and when such entities receive a dose of this enhancement it has a tendency not to affect them at all. There are others who have naturally sturdy energy bodies who are able to accept a great deal of enhanced light moving through the energy body without its creating any problems with their internal wiring, shall we say.

Then there are those who have been working with a reasonably good wattage, but a low amperage, so that as long as experience flows in a non-enhanced manner, all is well, but when the high-amp light moves through the energy body, as the result of the chemical reactions of the physical body to the substances, there is an overactivation of the wiring and it breaks.

When a fuse blows in an energy system for your house, for instance, it is simply a matter of taking out the bad fuse and putting in a new fuse and restarting the electrical system. However, it is not possible to do that with the energy body. When there is a hole blown in the wiring, it is often a matter of some years before the energy body is able to knit back together the circuitry involved.

This circumstance is often described by this instrument as “having a hole blown in your aura.” When this occurs, naturally it is considered to be a very unfortunate thing and in some cases there have been situations where there was never the possibility in that incarnation and on the level of that circuitry of mending that circuitry entirely.

Consequently, we would not presume either to encourage or discourage your desires for experience, but we would simply wish you to be aware that there is no way to judge a safe dosage or a proper dosage of such enhancing chemicals. There is only your estimate as to the condition of your wiring internally, metaphysically speaking, and the circumstances which surround your use of these substances.

We apologize for not being able to speak concerning specific drugs and their actions upon you. However, from our point of view it is impossible because of the fact that not only are you unique but you are not the same entity today that you will be tomorrow. There are many cycles of energy that are moving through you at all times and the combinations are nearly infinite. Consequently, were we able to become utterly familiar with your wiring and so forth, we still could not speak to the specific effects of a specific chemical upon your system.

May we answer you further, my brother? We are those of Q’uo.

Thank you, Q’uo. I’m sure S will enjoy your answer.

D: I have a quick follow-up to that, if it’s okay.

We are those of Q’uo, and would welcome your query, my brother.

D: Would it be possible for you to say if these chemicals generally make one more vulnerable to psychic greetings?

We are those of Q’uo, and are aware of your query, my brother. To those who are ignorant, there is much less challenge or resistance, shall we say, than to those who have received light. With each honor comes a duty. When you have asked to learn more and have taken substances which are designed to increase the amount of light that you have seen, then you are responsible for the light that you have seen.

As you glow more brightly, you shall attract more attention from those whose delight is in putting out the light that they perceive, or at least putting it to use for their purposes. Therefore, my brother, in general, the answer is yes.

May we answer you further, my brother? We are those of Q’uo.

D: That’s great.

Now let me get to the meat of what I have to say. I experimented with Salvia extracts 5 or so times, anyone else who has had this profound experience will know how real it is, and if you read the above quoted passage you'll understand how it is so.

The last time, I used the most powerful extract thus far which was 30x(completely legal then even maybe still so in most states).

Unlike the other profound experiences, this one was even more serious. After exhaling here came the trip and enter men in my house where the walls should have been, but only torso up, their bottom halves were not visible in this plane, but they were reptilian. It took me two months to realize that, because I had read of the lizard threads and David dIcke briefly and just laughed it off, paid no attention that one was even too far out for me. At this moment in time during this experience I thought they were maybe African, their skin was ashy grey, but guess what? They aren't what got my attention. While they were stationary and not animated, I only saw a fixed sprite of them with their gaze toward an entity that was animated and he was violently throwing his hands towards like doing a magic spell, he was 15 feet away and standing still, each tug of his arms brought me towards him like I was standing on a stage and each time he pulledit was like I was on a conveyor belt and I was brought towards him.

During all this I was so bewildered I wasn't terribly frightened, I thought this is just how it was and all reality was going with me. He looked exactly like the character from the move Predator. He had at least two ashy white, sort of albino African-like skin is the closet my mind could relate to these beings, lizard men surrounding me.

I felt a field around me, with it being anchored by the un-animated lizard men(they look like a human bred with a raptor from jurassic park, imagine a human with a head of the raptor).

I realize he was using them in a "spell" or whatever you wan t to call it to influence me, though I didn't physically see this field I knew it was there because I could feel it and when I regained my free will and recognized I was still in my house and coming back to my senses I step up and over the field and the experience completely ended.

I didn't know what to think, some of the furniture in my home was all moved in that direction, chairs wedge under the table and such in the center of where this was all taking place. I was overwhelmed and went to bed to bed and tried to erase it from my mind.

I didn't want to think of this experience. This was over 2 years ago and since then I've research majorly about the topic of astral parasites and I've seen others in my awaking moments(the in-between sleep and waking moment) I've seen what I best think are floating symbols or artifacts of someone remote viewing me and a grey. I even saw the title of this thread and almost clicked on it because the name "Predator" drew my attention but I didn't what to stir up that in my mind and also I thought it probably wasn't about this.

After now reading it, I see the content and I whole heartily agree but must correct you that there are variety on that side of the charge, the negative. Most of the greys, lizards and the whole band work on the behalf of the Orion Crusaders(The Predator) in this galaxy and right now the game is being played on Earth.

Anyway, what I think was happening is I was on the verge of leaving this density for an adventure in the 4th density and her came the Predator to gobble me up using his minions. They only obey him because they are scared if they don't, while us of the positive vibration, which on this planet in this galaxy can be referred to as The Galactic Confederation of Light or Angels and Planets in Service to the Infinite One Creator. We are the positive, they the negative. It takes both to complete the circuit. They are the universe(creator) playing their role, we play ours, in the end we are One and has the "Hidden Hand" said, have a good laugh when it's all over with and we are back at Source.

The positive path is straight, while the negative is a very winding road but is necessary to complete the circuit and create work. Other wise there would be no movement which the negative and we couldn't get back home.

Thank you for this thread, for many I hope they do not take what I type here serious if they wish, but those who are seekers and resonate and fell my sincerity, I spoke thusly.

Peace and Love to all of light and all it's distortions!

All is well and we are in some kind of adventure. We are the creator who split himself up into a "manyness" and are thickly veiled in this Universe by choice of the Logos, or the Great Central Sun Alcyone or "Zion"

You have helped me understand a little bit better, I hope I have done returned the same!

The concern I have is the acquisition of a theory to be held as a belief system. This goes against everything that Krishnamurti suggested.

Following the teaching of Krishnamurti, no belief system is any better than any other belief system. The theories of the monotheistic religions are, in terms of thought, no better or worse than the Buddhist theories.

It is all thought; all created by the consciousness of the "self"/'thinker' for the purpose of maintaining the temporal continuity of the "self".

'Three Dimensions of Consciousness' is not any theory about consciousness. It is not something that I would have you believe. (Just like there are three states of water: ice, water and steam. That is not any belief. That is something that can readily be observed.) It is a description of consciousness. It is not Popper-falsifiable any more than the three states of water are Popper-falsifiable. It is a summary of observations.

The body and its sensations and perceptions and emotions and behaviors are part of the "self"; meanwhile, the soul or the spirit is not something that can be directly observed. It is a thought used to maintain the existence of the "self". Same goes for such things as "immortality".

Krishnamurti talks about the observation of thought, or the observation of the 'thinker'.

I have taken that as a template, and taken it backwards in time another step, for the observation of the "self".

By the "observing consciousness".

Michael

Quoting: 4Q529

i guess you are aware that you have a very abstract take upon things. although you seem to explicitly seemto deny this, by saying that your distinction it's not a theory (and i agree to what you said in this respect), nevertheless what you transmit are mainly abstract meanings.

if you would give basic examples in which those 3 states could be unmistakenly observed, likewise one could show to a kid water,ice and stem, then it would all be clear.

but reading through your posts i could not clearly find the difference between 'the thinker' and 'the self' as two distinct states of counsciousness.

without all these abstract terms,maybe it would be easier if you wouldpoint to particular experiences and feelings that exemplify those states

i guess you are aware that you have a very abstract take upon things. although you seem to explicitly seemto deny this, by saying that your distinction it's not a theory (and i agree to what you said in this respect), nevertheless what you transmit are mainly abstract meanings.

if you would give basic examples in which those 3 states could be unmistakenly observed, likewise one could show to a kid water,ice and stem, then it would all be clear.

but reading through your posts i could not clearly find the difference between 'the thinker' and 'the self' as two distinct states of counsciousness.

without all these abstract terms,maybe it would be easier if you wouldpoint to particular experiences and feelings that exemplify those states

Quoting: andreidita

Fair enough.

Can you observe that the "self" is a curved 'spatiality' of consciousness? In other words, my "self" is over here and your "self" is over there? Can you see that? Can you see that the separation between these two "selves" is a consequence of the 'movement' of self-reflection by your nervous system and my nervous system which localizes my sensations and perceptions to one particular body, which is mine, rather than another; that is, yours?

This body has had experiences over time; sensations and perceptions; memories of those sensation and perceptions; relationships with people; performed certain behaviors rather than others. All of that is consciousness of the "self".

Its mechanisms are the pursuit of pleasure and the avoidance of pain at the neurological level as well as the psychological level; that is, in relation to its creation of images of itself and other images of relationships and understandings of reality.

But, if you observe the consciousness of the "self" carefully, you will see that it is tenaciously attached to images; and those images change quite rapidly. They have no inherent continuity. But, if those images collapse completely, the "self" will collapse into psychosis.

So in comes the consciousness of the 'thinker' to maintain the existence of the 'spatiality' of consciousness called the "self". And that consciousness has its own requirements, demands and characteristics of interaction.

Can the consciousness of the "self" absolutely be sharply differentiated at all times from the consciousness of the 'thinker'? Not really. Their interaction is more along the lines of a Lorenz "butterfly" strange attractor; that is, people usually oscillate very rapidly from one to the other in a seamless movement.

What is the language of the "self"? Emotions, poetry and the lyrics of songs; sensations and perception of the space-time reality; the evidence for the basis of scientific theory.

What is the language of the 'thinker'? Logic, scientific method, time going only in a forward direction etc.

This is a place to start.

But one must actually stand back and observe how these things operate to get the real story.

You are continually moving from one of these dimensions of consciousness to another in relation to events, emotions, and thoughts conveyed by others.

Just one more thing about my "abstract take on things" that has to do with the moving train analogy.

I observe things from the frame of reference of the person in the train station. I see the forward motion of the dropped ball on the moving train as well as the vertical component.

To the person on the train, the forward component of that motion is "abstract".

To me, it is not "abstract" at all. It is something that I actually see.

I've been doing this for some time now, since I picked up Krishnamurti in 1973. I see more and more things that other people consider to be "abstract" if not utterly delusional.

Is it possible for one to learn how to "observe" in such a way?

All I can say is that, at one time, I did not understand what Krishnamurti was saying. Then, after reading a number of his books, it became clear.

i guess you are aware that you have a very abstract take upon things. although you seem to explicitly seemto deny this, by saying that your distinction it's not a theory (and i agree to what you said in this respect), nevertheless what you transmit are mainly abstract meanings.

if you would give basic examples in which those 3 states could be unmistakenly observed, likewise one could show to a kid water,ice and stem, then it would all be clear.

but reading through your posts i could not clearly find the difference between 'the thinker' and 'the self' as two distinct states of counsciousness.

without all these abstract terms,maybe it would be easier if you wouldpoint to particular experiences and feelings that exemplify those states

Quoting: andreidita

Fair enough.

Can you observe that the "self" is a curved 'spatiality' of consciousness? In other words, my "self" is over here and your "self" is over there? Can you see that? Can you see that the separation between these two "selves" is a consequence of the 'movement' of self-reflection by your nervous system and my nervous system which localizes my sensations and perceptions to one particular body, which is mine, rather than another; that is, yours?

This body has had experiences over time; sensations and perceptions; memories of those sensation and perceptions; relationships with people; performed certain behaviors rather than others. All of that is consciousness of the "self".

Its mechanisms are the pursuit of pleasure and the avoidance of pain at the neurological level as well as the psychological level; that is, in relation to its creation of images of itself and other images of relationships and understandings of reality.

But, if you observe the consciousness of the "self" carefully, you will see that it is tenaciously attached to images; and those images change quite rapidly. They have no inherent continuity. But, if those images collapse completely, the "self" will collapse into psychosis.

So in comes the consciousness of the 'thinker' to maintain the existence of the 'spatiality' of consciousness called the "self". And that consciousness has its own requirements, demands and characteristics of interaction.

Can the consciousness of the "self" absolutely be sharply differentiated at all times from the consciousness of the 'thinker'? Not really. Their interaction is more along the lines of a Lorenz "butterfly" strange attractor; that is, people usually oscillate very rapidly from one to the other in a seamless movement.

What is the language of the "self"? Emotions, poetry and the lyrics of songs; sensations and perception of the space-time reality; the evidence for the basis of scientific theory.

What is the language of the 'thinker'? Logic, scientific method, time going only in a forward direction etc.

This is a place to start.

But one must actually stand back and observe how these things operate to get the real story.

You are continually moving from one of these dimensions of consciousness to another in relation to events, emotions, and thoughts conveyed by others.

Michael

Quoting: 4Q529

to put what you say in the frame of reference of dream consciousness, it would be like:

'the self' - regular consciousness when one is continuously swept away by ever changing situations'the thinker' - those moments inside regular dreams when one becomes conscious of the absurdity of some details in the flow of the dream, which do not fit a logical structure, and struggles to impose a logical structure on the seemingly non-sensical and continuously changing dream landscape'the observer' - would be somehow akin to the consciousness which is available in lucid dreaming, when one knows that one is dreaming.

also it is interesting that as one grounds more and more in the 'observer' state in waking states it becomes more and more obvious that most people live their waking life exactly as in a dream - struggling most of the time between 'the self' and 'the thinker' states with very short and rare moments of awakening to the 'observer' state